29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002. 53:161–86
c 2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
Copyright °
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY∗
Naomi Ellemers,1 Russell Spears,2 and Bertjan Doosje2
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
1
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9555,
2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands; e-mail: [email protected]
2
Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB
Amsterdam, The Netherlands; e-mail: SP [email protected],
SP [email protected]
Key Words identity threat, group commitment, social context, identity functions,
group distinctiveness
■ Abstract In this chapter, we examine the self and identity by considering the
different conditions under which these are affected by the groups to which people
belong. From a social identity perspective we argue that group commitment, on the
one hand, and features of the social context, on the other hand, are crucial determinants
of central identity concerns. We develop a taxonomy of situations to reflect the different
concerns and motives that come into play as a result of threats to personal and group
identity and degree of commitment to the group. We specify for each cell in this
taxonomy how these issues of self and social identity impinge upon a broad variety of
responses at the perceptual, affective, and behavioral level.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BASIC PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Personal versus Collective Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social Identity and Group Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Importance of Social Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Identity Concerns and Self Motives: Towards a Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESPONSES AND STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell 1: No Threat, Low Group Commitment: Noninvolvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell 2: No Threat, High Commitment: Identity Expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell 3: Self-Directed Threat, Low Commitment:
Self-Affirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell 4: Self-Directed Threat, High Commitment: Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell 5: Group-Directed Threat, Low Commitment:
Individual Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
162
162
162
163
164
166
167
167
169
170
172
174
∗
Author’s note: The order in which the authors’ names are listed does not reflect their
relative input into this product. It has been a truly collective enterprise.
0084-6570/02/0201-0161$14.00
161
29 Nov 2001
11:11
162
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
Cell 6: Group-Directed Threat, High Commitment:
Group Affirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
INTRODUCTION
Issues of self and identity are usually conceptualized at the level of the personal self.
Although this tradition emphasizes the importance of social roles and social interactions for the awareness of who one is (see Banaji & Prentice 1994, Baumeister
1998), these are mainly considered as interindividual processes, in terms of how
reflected appraisals from others contribute to the definition of self (see Swann et al.
2000) or may help fulfill a generic need to belong (see Baumeister & Leary 1995,
Leary & Baumeister 2000). In this chapter, using social identity theory (Tajfel
1978, Tajfel & Turner 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner 1987, 1999),
we focus on the different conditions under which issues of selfhood and identity
are affected by the groups to which people belong. For this purpose we develop a
taxonomy of situations in which different identity concerns play a role, and accordingly, where the social self serves different functions and motives. We then proceed
by specifying for each cell in this taxonomy how these issues of self and identity
impinge upon a broad variety of perceptual, affective, and behavioral responses.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
Personal versus Collective Self
Concern with the personal self and issues of personal identity as an explanatory
frame for understanding social behavior dominates theoretical accounts and empirical work even when group processes and intergroup relations are the object of
investigation. For instance, group cohesion is often conceptualized as stemming
from interpersonal ties between individual group members (see also Hogg 1992,
Prentice et al. 1994), effects of the group on people’s self-definitions are examined by assessing expectations of individual ingroup members about each other
(Swann et al. 2000), or the tendency to either associate with or distance the self
from particular groups is explained by considering how membership in the group
can be beneficial for the individual in question (e.g., Luhtanen & Crocker 1991).
Western societies, in which most of this theorizing and research has been carried
out, can be characterized as cultural contexts with a strong emphasis on personal
identities and individual achievements (Hofstede 1980, Triandis 1989). As a result, the primary emphasis in social psychological theory and research is on the
analysis of individual processes and interpersonal interaction. This concern with
the individual self also permeates commonly used research paradigms, in which
manipulations and measures expressly or inadvertently focus on the individual
self or on interpersonal comparisons with other ingroup members. Furthermore, in
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
163
laboratory experimentation with the “minimal group paradigm,” categorizations
are often arbitrary and temporary, resulting in groups with no history and no future
(Doosje et al. 2001). This implies that overall levels of group commitment tend
to remain relatively low in these studies, which is likely to diminish concerns
with group-level outcomes. It is perhaps no wonder that the observed effects seem
to confirm the notion that even in social situations personal identities tend to be
primary (Gaertner et al. 1999, Simon 1997).
Nevertheless, there is a substantial body of research reporting on phenomena
that illustrate the powerful impact of people’s social identities on their perceptions,
emotions, and behavior. Examples include sports team members who personally
take the blame for a team loss (Taylor & Doria 1981), research participants who
stick together with an unsuccessful group, even when they have the opportunity
to leave (Ellemers et al. 1997), or activists who may jeopardize their personal
well-being for causes or principles that are unlikely to affect their own immediate
outcomes (e.g., animal rights and environmental activists; e.g., Drury & Reicher
2000). The lengths that people sometimes go to in order to protect their group,
and the collective self, also belie the notion that the collective self is necessarily
subservient to the individual self (Gaertner et al. 1999). Perhaps the most extreme
form of individual self-sacrifice in the collective cause is the case of kamikaze
pilots and suicide bombers. Thus, there are numerous examples of impactful social
behavior that cannot always easily be explained by referring to the personal self
or individual identity maintenance concerns. Instead, such observations are more
compatible with the notion that there are situations in which people’s collective
selves and social identities may guide their perceptual, affective, and behavioral
responses in important ways.
Rather than trying to decide whether the individual self or the collective self
is more important, we think a more fruitful approach is to specify the conditions
under which one is likely to take precedence over the other, and with what effect.
An important contribution to our understanding of these issues is provided by
the social identity approach, subsuming both social identity theory (Tajfel 1978,
Tajfel & Turner 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner 1987). This theoretical framework emphasizes the interaction between social identity as a perceiver factor implicating different aspects of the self (or different social selves),
and social contextual factors that either enhance or diminish the meaningfulness of personal as well as social identities. We consider each of these factors in
turn.
Social Identity and Group Commitment
At first sight, it would seem that processes associated with the collective self are
often similar to those that occur for the individual self, except that they occur at the
group level instead of at an individual level (e.g., a concern with positive esteem).
However, the inclusion of group-based aspects of self and identity also implies that
additional issues and processes come into play, so that theoretical and empirical
insights on topics such as self-perception, self-esteem, or self-presentation cannot
29 Nov 2001
11:11
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
164
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
simply be transferred from the individual level to the group level (e.g., Schmitt
et al. 2000, Schopler & Insko 1992). Moreover, the interaction and competition
between the personal and collective levels of self add a further level of complexity
(Spears 2001).
Whereas the personal self is defined as a unitary and continuous awareness of
who one is (Baumeister 1998), it is less clear how we should conceive of the social
self, which can be as varied as the groups to which we belong. Each of us has
a range of different, cross-cutting, social identities, including those derived from
highly meaningful and clearly delineated groups (e.g., psychology professors) as
well as those referring to more abstract and perhaps ambiguous social categories
(e.g., fellow Europeans). An important consequence is that differential perceptions
of self and others may emerge, depending on which identity is most salient (Crisp
& Hewstone 2001, Haslam & Turner 1992, Mussweiler et al. 2000, Spears 2001,
Van Rijswijk & Ellemers 2001). Thus, the extent to which group characteristics
and group processes affect the social self may differ from one group member to
the next, depending on the extent to which they consider themselves in terms of
that particular group membership (Ellemers et al. 1999c).
One source of confusion in the literature is that the term “social identification”
has been used to refer to the content of the identity itself, as well as to indicate the
strength of the association with a particular social category. These are essentially
different components of the social identity, which although related, may operate
relatively independently of each other (Ellemers et al. 1999b; see also Jackson,
2001, Smith Murphy & Coats 1999). To avoid confusion here, we reserve the term
“social identity” to refer to the nature or content of a particular identity, whereas
we use the term “commitment” to indicate the strength of people’s ties with that
particular group.
This conceptual distinction makes it easier to understand that people may feel
strongly committed to groups that confer a negative identity upon them. For example, the employees of Baan, an IT company in the Netherlands, were strongly tied
together by the fact that they all came from a small, highly religious community. As
a result, when profits plummeted, instead of leaving for a more financially sound
company, employees started daily prayers in the hope that the firm might yet be
saved from bankruptcy (Baltesen 2000). The strength of their commitment did not
waver, even though the object of their identification was no longer attractive from
an outsider’s perspective. We argue that when collective identities are concerned,
the level of commitment to a particular group or category determines how group
characteristics, norms, or outcomes will influence the perceptual, affective, and
behavioral responses of individuals belonging to that group.
The Importance of Social Context
A central point of departure in the social identity approach is that the impact of
social groups on the way people see themselves and others around them cannot be
understood without taking into consideration the broader social context in which
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
165
they function. Early formulations of this theoretical position (Tajfel 1978, Tajfel &
Turner 1979) focused on the proposition that social structures can be characterized
by a number of key features (namely the permeability of group boundaries, the
stability of group statuses, and the legitimacy of current status relations) that
are also important determinants of the likelihood that people self-define either at
the individual level or at the group level. Empirical work confirmed that people
were more inclined to identify as group members when group status was unstable
(promoting intergroup competition and social change), whereas the individual
level of self-definition was more salient when group boundaries were permeable
or inclusion in the group seemed illegitimate (see Ellemers 1993 for an overview).
Further developments in the self-categorization tradition have elaborated on
more immediate social contextual factors that may influence self-definitions and
identity concerns (Turner 1987). The basic assumption here is that the relevant
social context determines which categorization seems most suitable to provide
a meaningful organization of social stimuli, and hence which identity aspects
become salient as guidelines for the perceptions and behavior of those who operate
within that context (e.g., Oakes 1987; see also Deaux & Major 1987). Accordingly,
research has demonstrated that people perceive their own and other groups in terms
of different characteristics, depending on which comparison group or comparative
domain provides the frame for their judgments (e.g., Doosje et al. 1998, Haslam
& Turner 1992, Van Rijswijk & Ellemers 2001).
Taking this reasoning one step further, it has been argued that we should not
conceive of certain social identities as inherently attractive or unattractive. Instead,
the same group membership may be seen either as identity enhancing or as jeopardizing a positive sense of self, depending on whether it compares favorably or
unfavorably to other groups that are relevant in that context. For instance, whereas
psychology students could establish a positive identity when comparing their intelligence with arts students, or their creativity with physics students, they felt inferior
when comparing themselves with physics students in terms of intelligence, or with
arts students in terms of creativity (Spears et al. 1997a). Thus, it is the social context, rather than specific group features, that determines the evaluative flavor of
any given group membership. An intriguing consequence is that the motivational
implications of a particular social identity are shaped by these contextual features,
which may include the nature of characteristics associated with other groups.
These more socio-structural and social comparative treatments of context in
social identity and self-categorization theories point to two related but distinct features of context relevant to our analysis. First, the context provides feedback about
one’s social position (of the person in the group, of the group in relation to other
groups) that can provide a sense of security (even superiority) or engender a source
of threat to self (Ouwerkerk & Ellemers 2001). At the group level, social status
and group distinctiveness are the main contextual factors that produce this threat.
Second, the context also constitutes the social reality that facilitates or restricts
attempts to cope with these potential threats. Stability, permeability, legitimacy
and the validity of comparison information are all examples of contextual factors
29 Nov 2001
11:11
166
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
that can be used to develop and choose feasible strategies designed to address
self-relevant concerns such as identity threat (Doosje et al. 1999b, Ellemers & Van
Rijswijk 1997).
To summarize, the social context is both a source of threat and source of potential
resources to deal with threats. Commitment to the group is a crucial moderating
factor that determines the responses to these circumstances and the use of the
resources available. We now develop a theoretical taxonomy that further specifies the responses to combinations of identity threats and group commitment and
elaborates the role of the personal and collective identities therein.
Identity Concerns and Self Motives: Towards a Taxonomy
In the previous section, we argued that different social situations may have specific
implications for issues of self and identity. Of course, some group-based identities
may be so central to the person that they become chronically salient. In a similar
vein, some intergroup comparisons may be so pervasive that they dominate a
variety of social contexts and overpower other social identities. More generally,
commitment to identity and social contextual features interact, combining to form
into a limited number of meaningful social situations (Spears et al. 1999, Turner
1999). To examine this more systematically, we have crossed commitment and
context dimensions to form a taxonomy of situations in which different identity
concerns arise, and hence, different perceptual, affective, and behavioral responses
may be anticipated.
A central feature of this taxonomy is that it specifies particular identity concerns as well as the conditions under which they are most likely to play a role.
Although the differences between the cells should be seen in gradual rather than
absolute terms, the proposed organization of situations structures our discussion
of which identity concerns are expected to emerge and the functional implications of self-related responses in the different classes of situations. An important
property of social contexts for the self is their propensity to induce some form
of threat to individuals or to the group, which calls for some (coping) response
(see also Branscombe et al. 1999a). We propose that the consequences of such
threat (or its absence) for the self, and hence the resulting responses, may be
fundamentally different depending on the level of commitment to the group in
question.
Our treatment is somewhat asymmetrical, reflecting the dominant concerns in
the literature. We concentrate primarily on conditions of threat because these most
often require and invoke responses, which also tend to vary according to level of
self and group commitment. We therefore neglect situations in which the personal
or group self actually benefits in some way. Although psychologically interesting,
these contexts are beyond the scope of this chapter. However, it is important to
observe that conditions of group advantage are receiving increasing attention, and
the role of this factor in intergroup processes is increasingly being acknowledged
and researched (see e.g., Branscombe 1998, Leach et al. 2001).
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
167
TABLE 1 Primary concerns and motives of the social self: a taxonomy
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
Group Commitment
Low
High
No threat
Concern:
Motive:
1.
Accuracy/efficiency
Noninvolvement
2.
Social meaning
Identity expression
Individual-directed threat
Concern:
Motive:
3.
Categorization
Self-affirmation
4.
Exclusion
Acceptance
Group-directed threat
Concern:
Motive:
5.
Value
Individual mobility
6.
Distinctiveness, value
Group-affirmation
We first consider no-threat situations in which people are mainly concerned
with forming accurate impressions efficiently or trying to make sense of their own
group identity under different conditions of group commitment. We then move
into situations in which a threat to the individual self may stem from the relationship between the individual and the group. For those with low commitment,
inclusion in the group may be threatening, whereas the possibility of exclusion
from the group or category can be a source of threat when commitment is high.
Finally, we address contexts in which group identity is threatened, the terrain of
much work in the social identity tradition. How people respond when either the
value or the distinctiveness of their group is called into question is again crucially affected by commitment to the group. Along with the different identity
concerns that may arise, we aim to specify the functions of self associated with
each situation and specific concerns and resulting motives that arise (Table 1).
We now address the six cells in turn and examine in greater detail the responses
and strategies that are likely to emerge corresponding to the different identity
concerns.
RESPONSES AND STRATEGIES
Cell 1: No Threat, Low Group Commitment: Noninvolvement
The first cell of our taxonomy does not implicate the self, at least in terms of
commitment to a group self or through contextual threats to self. The predominant
response to surrounding social stimuli is therefore one of noninvolvement. The
characteristic response profile for this cell is that it will primarily have implications
for perception, but less (if at all) for affect and behavior. The concern for social
perception under these conditions is accuracy or sense-making on the one hand
and efficiency on the other (often with a trade-off between these two).
29 Nov 2001
11:11
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
168
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
There have been different theoretical approaches addressing this issue. Within
social cognition, as a result of the information processor metaphor in the heuristics
and biases tradition, categorization and stereotyping have come to be regarded as
ways of managing the surfeit of social information efficiently, especially under
conditions of limited personal involvement (e.g., Fiske et al. 1999). Because the
group self is largely uninvolved, it will not bias perception, at least not in groupserving ways, although efficiency concerns may lead to other kinds of information
processing biases associated with simplification (Fiske et al. 1999, Macrae &
Bodenhausen 2000). These approaches often make a distinction between categorization and stereotype activation (which occur relatively automatically or effortlessly) on the one hand, and more effortful individuation on the other, and
they therefore have a dual-process character (Brewer & Harasty Feinstein 1999,
Fiske et al. 1999). However, other models have argued that knowledge activation
and application processes underlying social perception can be understood without
making such a clear division in processing terms (e.g., Kunda & Thagard 1996,
McGarty 1999), suggesting that it may be less clear whether the function of categorization and stereotyping is to simplify or save energy, rather than to reflect
learned associations of the social world in general.
Research in the tradition of self-categorization theory has focused on the contextual determinants of social perception, showing how stereotyping (and other
related processes) shifts with the judgmental context (Haslam et al. 1992, Oakes
et al. 1994). According to this approach, social perception is essentially context
sensitive and comparative, and the emphasis is more on contextual relevance and
sense making than on accuracy or efficiency concerns per se.
The self (individual or collective) might be implicated in cell 1 not through a
threat to identity, but through more instrumental motives relating to relevant goals,
outcomes, and relevant audiences. Under these conditions the noninvolved character clearly changes and the role of motivation and affect become more apparent.
This issue has been approached from the perspective of the different traditions
already described. For example, research by Fiske and her colleagues on the effects of interdependence and anticipated interaction shows that when people have
a self-interested relation to others, attention becomes focused to better predict their
behavior: The cognitive miser becomes the motivated tactician (Fiske et al. 1999).
Within the self-categorization tradition, research has also shown how behavior can
reflect strategic self-presentational concerns under conditions of accountability to
others (e.g., Ellemers et al. 1999a, Reicher et al. 1995).
To summarize, in cell 1 of our taxonomy, relevant theories focus on social
perception, rather than affective and behavioral responses, and generally they reflect noninvolvement unless the self is directly implicated. Approaches differ as to
whether social perception for the uninvolved perceiver should be seen as biased by
lack of motivation or processing resources (as the limited information processing
metaphor implies), or not necessarily, as self-categorization theorists have argued.
This may depend on whether perception in terms of individuals and individual
characteristics is seen as more valid than perception in terms of group identities
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
169
and attributes, which is itself arguably a question of level of self-definition and
social context (Reynolds & Oakes 2000, Spears et al. 1997b).
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
Cell 2: No Threat, High Commitment: Identity Expression
In this cell of our taxonomy, commitment to the group identity is increased. The
main implication is that social perception now acquires a self-relevant and selfrelative character at the group level. As a consequence, responses are no longer
restricted to the perceptual realm but also involve affect and behavior. However,
behavior in this cell still lacks the urgency that it can be given by threats to identity.
The importance of group identity means the primary concern here will be to express
and affirm this identity. We now consider ways in which this identity-expressive
function manifests itself in the domains of perception, affective response, and
behavior.
When group identity is not yet clear, but there is a commitment to the incipient
identity, there is likely to be an attempt to create a distinctive identity by distinguishing and differentiating the group from outgroups in the comparative context. This
process is similar to the sense-making process described in the previous section,
but here the aim is not simply to make sense of the external world, but to define the
group-self as distinct from other groups. Spears et al. (2001b) have referred to
this process of gaining a distinctive self as “creative distinctiveness,” and evidence indicates that indistinct groups such as minimal groups can be more likely
to differentiate themselves than more meaningful groups as a way of creating a
distinctive group identity. Along similar lines, Hogg and colleagues have pointed
to the experience of uncertainty in relation to group membership (e.g., Mullin &
Hogg 1998), arguing that this may motivate people to define the situation and their
relation in it, by displaying group-affirming responses.
If group identity is already formed and clear-cut, social perception and attempts
at intergroup differentiation are predicted to follow principles set out in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner 1987).
Following the meta-contrast principle, groups tend to endorse group norms and
conform to the prototypical ingroup position (maximizing intergroup differences
and intragroup similarities) while also perceiving the outgroup in stereotypic terms
(Turner 1987). A key difference from the influence of social context on perception described in the previous cell is that commitment to the group introduces the
motivation to differentiate the ingroup (a distinctiveness motive) in positive ways
(an enhancement motive) (Tajfel & Turner 1979). Because the group is not threatened in this context, satisfaction of group distinctiveness may often be sufficient,
however (Spears et al. 2001b). For example, research shows that for groups that
are compared on different dimensions, it may be possible to concede superiority to
the outgroup on their dimension as a way of maintaining distinctiveness, as long
as there are alternative dimensions available to derive some positive character for
the ingroup (Doosje et al. 1998, Ellemers et al. 1999a, Mummendey & Schreiber
1983, Van Knippenberg 1984).
29 Nov 2001
11:11
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
170
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
Turning to the affective processes, there is empirical support for the theoretical position that positive differentiation can enhance group esteem, although the
evidence is mixed (see Hogg & Abrams 1988, Long & Spears 1997, Rubin &
Hewstone 1998 for reviews). However, one of the problems with the so-called
self-esteem hypothesis is that when group identity is not threatened, it is not clear
that differentiation should function to enhance self-esteem, especially if group
distinctiveness is satisfied. The interpretation of research findings is further obscured by conceptualization and measurement issues, with early tests focusing on
personal rather than collective measures of esteem, and measures defined in trait
rather than state terms (e.g., Luhtanen & Crocker 1991; see Long & Spears 1997,
Rubin & Hewstone 1998).
At the behavioral level, group commitment is usually associated with prosocial
behavior, such as volunteering to support group members who suffer from illness
(e.g., Simon et al. 2000) or helping colleagues at work (Ellemers et al. 1998). However, the motive here is to differentiate between the ingroup and outgroup, which
implies that commitment may also have negative effects, such as outgroup derogation (see Hinkle & Brown 1988). Thus, the general pattern is that commitment
will enhance conformity to group norms (e.g., Doosje et al. 1999a, Terry & Hogg
1996), which may just as easily result in behavior that may be considered antisocial or deviant from the outside (e.g., Postmes & Spears 1998, Reicher et al. 1995)
as prescribe fair behavior towards outgroup members (Jetten et al. 1999). One
paradoxical consequence of such self-categorization effects is that strong commitment can also result in individual behavior where this is normative for the group
(Ellemers et al. 1999a, Jetten et al. 2001c). Thus, group commitment is crucial in
distinguishing group behavior from truly individual behavior (Spears 2001).
To summarize, the characteristic concern in cell 2 is the presence of a clear
meaningful group identity coupled to commitment to this identity. The main function is therefore to create a distinctive identity when it is not yet established, or
to express it on meaningful dimensions of differentiation when it is. In addition
to shifting social perception to group attributes, group commitment is likely to
implicate collective esteem and motivate behavioral differentiation.
Cell 3: Self-Directed Threat, Low Commitment:
Self-Affirmation
“I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”
Groucho Marx
For someone with a low degree of commitment to the group to be categorized as
a member of this group may threaten the individual self. Even those who can technically be considered as category members may experience the particular group
as a (psychological) outgroup. Such resistance to categorization may stem from
a variety of motives, including (a) the desire to establish individual uniqueness,
(b) a conviction that the categorization is not relevant to the situation at hand, (c)
the view that other additional categorizations should also be taken into account, or
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
171
(d ) resentment of losing personal control when a particular categorization is imposed by others. These responses have implications for self-perception, as well as
affect and behavior.
In optimal distinctiveness theory, Brewer (1991, Pickett & Brewer 2001) argues
that people find it aversive to be assimilated into large groups and should therefore prefer inclusion in relatively smaller groups (see also Frable 1993, Snyder
& Fromkin 1980). Here we propose that especially under conditions of low group
commitment (which may also occur in minority groups) people prefer to be
seen as separate individuals rather than being lumped together as a group. A
consequence at the perceptual level is that those who think they are inappropriately categorized should tend to emphasize intragroup differences. Spears et al.
(1999) report evidence that under conditions of category salience, less committed group members try to individuate the ingroup. In a similar vein, when
the categorization seems inappropriate to the situation at hand, group members
are likely to perceive themselves in terms of individually distinctive attributes,
which may be nonprototypical for their group. For instance, there is evidence
that high ranking women in organizations make a point of emphasizing selfdescriptive traits that are relevant to their position at work (e.g., competitive, ambitious) but set them apart from their gender category (see Ellemers 2001 for an
overview).
Whereas they may not be able to deny belonging to a particular group, people
may often resist being viewed in terms of that category exclusively. Attempts to
convey some personal uniqueness may take the form of creating a richer picture of
the self, by emphasizing additional identities. For instance, a study of Portuguese
immigrants in the Netherlands revealed that when it was likely that they would be
categorized as minority group members (given that they were judged by the Dutch
host group) they emphasized their dual identity, by decreasing identification with
the native (Portuguese) group while emphasizing their identity as members of the
host society (Ellemers et al. 1999a).
In terms of affective reactions, Lemyre & Smith (1985) have argued that in
minimal groups, the very act of being categorized can be threatening. This is
probably because of the low group commitment that is generally associated with
such minimal contexts. Indeed, there is empirical evidence that people are generally
less willing to be considered in terms of categorizations that are ascribed to them or
imposed upon them by others than to being included in groups whose membership
they have earned or chosen (Ellemers et al. 1999b). Barreto & Ellemers (2001)
showed that resistance against an imposed categorization occurs when people’s
preferred self-categorizations are neglected (see also Hornsey & Hogg 2000).
There is also evidence that categorization can be physiologically arousing for low
group identifiers, regardless of the value associated with the ingroup (Branscombe
et al. 1999a). Such aversion to categorization does not have to be general but may
be context specific, as when gender or ethnic group membership is applied in a
work setting where it should be irrelevant.
Although the general aim in this cell may be to counter the effects of categorization, sometimes the behavioral consequences of unsolicited categorization are
29 Nov 2001
11:11
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
172
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
beyond one’s control, as in the case of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson 1995,
Crocker et al. 1998, Steele 1997). This refers to the phenomenon that members of
stigmatized groups typically underperform on dimensions on which their group
stereotypically under-achieves (e.g., African Americans in intellectual domains,
women in mathematics). Recent empirical evidence indicates that similar undermining effects of stereotypic expectations for the performance of individual group
members can been observed for nonstigmatized groups (e.g., Leyens et al. 2000,
Marx et al. 1999, Stone et al. 1999). Indeed, even an awareness of positive stereotypic expectations (i.e., with respect to the mathematical skills of Asian-American
women) impaired participants’ math performance (Cheryan & Bodenhausen 2000;
Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambadi 1999).
It seems that these are all instances of the general phenomenon that people
tend to underperform when they are subjected to category-based expectations in
situations in which they might prefer to be judged in terms of individual merit (or
not at all). There is some evidence that concern with an unwanted categorization
takes up cognitive resources (Smart & Wegner 1999) and diminishes concentration
on the task at hand (Cheryan & Bodenhausen 2000). Indeed, a study in which
ethnicity salience was manipulated in a more subtle way resulted in enhanced
performance, indicating behavioral affirmation of the category stereotype (Cheryan
& Bodenhausen 2000), in line with cell 2 of our taxonomy.
A somewhat paradoxical behavioral result of category threat can be to display
ingroup bias. Although those who possess attractive individual characteristics (e.g.,
high individual ability) are more likely than others to resist categorization, as evidenced by decreased group identification (Ellemers 1993), when such unwanted
categorization seems inevitable, uncommitted group members may resort to ingroup bias to salvage their personal identity. Similarly, Long & Spears (1997)
found that, in a group context, people high in personal self-esteem tended to show
more ingroup bias than those low in personal self-esteem. Thus, what is characteristically seen as group-serving behavior can also come about as an attempt to
compensate for more individual concerns when categorization seems inevitable.
To summarize, there is some evidence that threat to the individual self resulting
from category inclusion can prompt perceptual, affective, and behavioral responses
designed to affirm individual identity or alternative identities and/or to use other
compensation strategies. An unwillingness to be categorized in one particular
category does not necessarily mean an aversion to being categorized in general.
Groucho Marx was happy enough to be a Marx brother—he just did not want to
be a member of a “club.”
Cell 4: Self-Directed Threat, High Commitment: Acceptance
When the person is committed to the group, the individual self is not threatened
by categorization, but rather by lack of acceptance in the valued group or even
exclusion. Accordingly, responses in this cell are in many respects opposite to
those considered in the previous section. Perceived exclusion or rejection by the
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
173
valued group will result in negative affect and attempts to gain acceptance. Even if
the threat to self does not derive from potential exclusion, highly committed group
members may seek refuge in the group as a way of compensating for their individual
shortcomings. Baumeister & Leary (1995) refer to similar considerations, although
they propose a generic need to belong, whereas we propose that this need only
emerges in particular contexts and in relation to groups to which one feels highly
committed.
Whereas one perceptual consequence of such threat from the perspective of
the self would be to recognize one’s peripheral status, paradoxically, the concern with acceptance may repress acknowledgment of possible rejection from the
group. For instance, a study by Jetten et al. (2001b) revealed that under the threat
of future rejection, highly committed group members perceived greater ingroup
homogeneity, which could be seen as an attempt to feel more included (see also
Pickett & Brewer 2001). In this case perception may reflect a motivated defensive
response. The primary observable responses to this form of threat are therefore
likely to be affective and behavioral, reflecting and designed to cope with this
threat.
In terms of the affective reactions, evidence shows that new members of groups
tend to be more anxious and lack confidence reflecting acceptance concerns (e.g.,
Moreland 1985). Jetten et al. (2001b) showed that highly committed peripheral
group members who anticipated future acceptance showed more positive and fewer
negative emotions than those who were less committed. Jetten et al. (2001a) investigated the affective consequences of having an insecure peripheral position in
the group (versus secure and prototypical) and examined how shifts in position
over time affected personal and collective self-esteem. Shifts to more prototypical
positions enhanced collective self-esteem, whereas shifts to more peripheral positions enhanced personal self-esteem—presumably reflecting reduced commitment
to the group.
A further affective consequence of marginal status is that people will likely
value prototypical group members more but may be especially critical of others also
perceived to be marginal. Ironically, black sheep (Marques & Paez 1995), at least
those who are committed to the group, may be the severest critics of fellow black
sheep. Schmitt & Branscombe (2001) showed that highly identified males who
received feedback that they were atypical of their gender (unmasculine) tended to
value prototypical males even more, but liked peripheral males (like themselves)
even less, than when not so threatened (see also Jetten et al. 2001b). In sum,
acceptance motives and identity concerns can even outweigh similarity-attraction
principles.
A marginal status within the group, and the motivation to improve this, is also
reflected in behavioral strategies. One such strategy is to display group prototypical
behavior, particularly when visible to ingroup members. Although ingroup helping
clearly qualifies as behavior that may earn approval of other ingroup members,
displays of allegiance to the group may also result in individualistic (Barreto &
Ellemers 2000) or even antisocial behavior, depending on the relevant group norms.
29 Nov 2001
11:11
174
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
For example, Noel et al. (1995) showed that peripheral group members were more
likely than core members to derogate outgroups, especially when identifiable to
the ingroup.
To summarize, those who are committed to the group but threatened by exclusion may try to emphasize their inclusion in perceptual ways (e.g., homogeneity).
They are likely to experience negative affect at the prospect of exclusion and respond by behavioral conformity to the group, of which ingroup bias is just one
form.
Cell 5: Group-Directed Threat, Low Commitment:
Individual Mobility
In this cell we consider how people respond to a threat to their group’s value when
they are not particularly committed to the group. Here the dominant motive is to
avoid the negative group identity that has been imposed and possibly align with
preferable ones, such as those instrumental to the individual self. First, however,
we should resolve the seeming contradiction that a negative evaluation of one’s
group should be perceived as threatening to the individual self for those low in
group commitment. To the extent that a nonvalued identity is called into question,
it would seem that this need not necessarily be perceived as threatening to the self.
Indeed, some have proposed that self-affirmation strategies may not be necessary if
the individual self is primary or stronger than the group self (Gaertner et al. 1999),
which may be particularly true for those with low commitment to the group.
Others have argued that explaining negative reactions of others to the self by
referring to the category (as in attributions to prejudice) may actually form a way
of protecting the individual self (Crocker et al. 1998). However, the generality of
this strategy has been disputed (e.g., Schmitt & Branscombe 2001); unless they
can hide their group membership, members of stigmatized groups are likely to
be chronically treated in terms of their devalued group membership, regardless of
their group commitment. Thus, it would be misleading to assume that low group
commitment is always sufficient to protect the individual self from negative group
identities.
An example of a perceptual coping response is provided by evidence that group
members who learn their group has a negative value tend to emphasize the heterogeneity within the group (especially when the social reality allows for this),
which may help convey that unfavorable group features do not necessarily apply
to the individual self (see Doosje et al. 1999b). Although emphasizing heterogeneity within groups could also be interpreted as a group level way of undermining the implications of overall differences between groups, further research
confirmed that only people with low commitment to the group used this variability strategy (Doosje et al. 1995). Accordingly, in addition to these instrumental
perceptions of the group, in the face of group-value threat uncommitted members
reported relatively low levels of self-stereotyping (Ellemers 2001, Spears et al.
1997a). Similarly, Mussweiler et al. (2000) found that when their group is depicted
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
175
negatively, people shift their self-definition to another identity, provided that they
have high self-esteem (see Tajfel and Turner 1979 for further “social creativity”
strategies).
Turning to the affective realm, there is considerable empirical support for
the view that receiving negative feedback about one’s group can lead to negative mood (e.g., McFarland & Buehler 1995) and reduced personal self-esteem
(see Ellemers & Barreto 2000 for an overview). Furthermore, under minimal
group conditions (when group commitment is typically low), a threat to the value
of the group often results in reduced ingroup identification (Ellemers 1993).
Once this has happened, identification is likely to stay low even while the group
develops over time, as long as the group-level feedback remains negative. Indeed, under these circumstances, people are only prepared to build affective ties
with their group when it is certain that their status will improve in the near future. This reflects an individually instrumental attitude, where the less committed try to distance themselves from the group affiliation in a threatened situation
(Doosje et al. 2001).
Perhaps the most straightforward behavioral response to group-value threat for
those with low commitment is to try to leave the group and gain access to another,
more attractive group. This behavioral strategy has been denoted with different
terms in different theoretical and research traditions, including exit, passing, or
individual mobility (Tajfel 1978, Tajfel & Turner 1979). The process of mobility
can involve dissatisfaction with membership of the threatened group (Ellemers
1993) and resistance of the identification of self as an ingroup member (Cialdini
et al. 1976). As a result, individually mobile group members decline opportunities
to improve the standing of their group (Wright et al. 1990) or to help other group
members (Ellemers 2001) while showing anticipatory identification with a more
attractive group (Ellemers 1993, Ellemers et al. 1997). However, when group
boundaries are impermeable, this cuts off the mobility route, leading to other social
creativity strategies (associated with the perceptual realm), or in more chronic and
extreme circumstances leading to internalization of inferiority (e.g., Jost & Banaji
1994).
Threat comes not just from the relative status or performance of the group, but
also reflects the moral value associated with its treatment of others (Branscombe
et al. 1999a), and this can have distinctive affective consequences. When a group’s
moral integrity is threatened, for example when a national history of exploiting
another nation is made salient, those who are less committed tend to suffer most
from negative affective reactions such as guilt (e.g., Doosje et al. 1998). Such
collective guilt in turn can have distinctive behavioral reactions resulting in some
sort of restitution on behalf of the victimized group (Branscombe et al. 2001, Swim
& Miller 1999). Thus, members who care least for their group are most likely to
experience negative affective reactions as a result of their group membership. As
a result, the least committed group members are most inclined to show prosocial
behavior, in this case towards the harmed group, again underlining that there is no
simple relation between group commitment and behavior.
29 Nov 2001
11:11
176
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
To summarize, group-level threat combined with low group commitment can
have a number of perceptual, affective, and behavioral consequences designed to
protect the individual self or seek out a preferred social identity, although low
commitment can also increase the chances of prosocial responses, as in the case
of the morality threat implied by collective guilt.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
Cell 6: Group-Directed Threat, High Commitment:
Group Affirmation
In this last cell of our taxonomy, we focus on the situation in which the threat is
directed at the group level and members feel highly committed to their group. Two
important sources of group threat can be distinguished in this context: threat in
terms of value (in terms of status or morality) and threats to group distinctiveness.
In terms of threat to group value qua status, social identity theory proposes that
perceptual, affective, and behavioral responses are instrumentally aimed at differentiation and group affirmation. Thus, at the perceptual level, highly committed
group members may stress the homogeneity of the ingroup (Doosje et al. 1995),
differentiate between groups (Spears et al. 1999), display relatively high levels
of self-stereotyping (Spears et al. 1997a), or affirm the collective self in other
ways (see also Steele 1987). These variables can be interpreted as indicators of a
state of mind that is conducive to collective group behavior aimed at challenging
the source of threat and changing the present status configuration insofar as it is
unfavorable for the ingroup (Doosje et al. 1999a), although these need to take
into account the social reality constraints of intergroup differences (Ellemers et al.
1999a).
In terms of affective responses, although threats to value are likely to impact
negatively on esteem (as for those with low commitment), a more collective coping
response among those who are committed to the group will lead them to display
even stronger group affiliation, expressing their loyalty to the devalued group.
Indeed, it has been observed that people have a tendency to emphasize group
cohesiveness when the value of the group is threatened (Branscombe et al. 1999b,
Turner et al. 1984). Subsequent research has shown that these affective reactions
in terms of expressing one’s loyalty to the group are most prominent for those who
were already committed to the group. Thus, highly committed members are most
likely to stick together with their group in terms of identification, even when there
is no realistic chance of improving its status position (Doosje et al. 2001).
Threats to group value may take different forms depending on contextual factors (social structure and comparison groups) and will result in different affective
reactions. For example, when their group’s values are threatened, members of powerful groups are more likely to express anger and contempt towards an outgroup
than members of weak or submissive groups. In addition, the inclination to move
against the outgroup, which is stronger among powerful groups than among weak
groups, is mediated by anger but not by contempt (Dijker 1987, Fiske et al. 2001,
Mackie et al. 2000, Smith 1993).
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
177
At the behavioral level, high commitment in combination with group threat
is likely to give rise to intergroup differentiation tendencies aimed at improving
the ingroup’s status position. This suggestion is in line with social identity theory,
which predicts competitive behavior among highly committed members when the
group’s status is threatened by comparison with a higher status outgroup (Tajfel
& Turner 1979). Such competitiveness might be expressed in a number of different ways. For example, people may derogate outgroup members when the
value of the ingroup is threatened (e.g., Branscombe & Wann 1994). Alternatively, when highly committed group members are faced with low group status,
they are likely to engage in attempts to redress the situation by means of collective action (Kelly & Breinlinger 1996), as has been observed for a variety of
social groups, ranging from workers (e.g., Veenstra & Haslam 2000) to gay people
(Simon et al. 1998).
When the moral value of a group is threatened, in contrast to less committed
group members those who feel highly committed to their group are unlikely to
express high levels of guilt (Doosje et al. 1998). Instead, they are more inclined to
display defensive reactions when their group’s moral value is challenged (e.g., by
downplaying the credibility of the presented negative image of their group). In behavioral terms, it accordingly seems that highly committed members are generally
not in favor of acknowledging their group’s culpability by official apologies to the
harmed group, but prefer to deal with the situation by offering financial reparation
(Branscombe et al. 2001).
Another fundamental source of threat is when the distinctiveness of the group is
undermined by comparison to similar outgroups. A central principle within social
identity theory is the motivation to seek or maintain group distinctiveness (Tajfel
1978, Tajfel & Turner 1979; see also Brewer 1991, Spears et al. 2001b). This
speaks to the very existence and raison d’être of the group as an entity and thus
addresses the identity expression function. Distinctiveness threat is less of an issue
for those with low group commitment because it further undermines the sense
of group identity and promotes recategorization at the superordinate level (Jetten
et al. 1999). Those who are highly committed, however, are clear about their group
identity and motivated to preserve its distinctiveness.
In terms of perceptions, threats to group distinctiveness combined with a high
level of commitment are likely to result in a high degree of self-stereotyping
(Spears et al. 1997a) and greater differentiation on stereotypic dimensions (Jetten
et al. 2001d). In terms of affective reactions, for highly committed group members
a threat to group distinctiveness is expected to give rise to reactions that induce
conflict between the ingroup and the outgroup and the motivation to restore distinctiveness (Spears et al. 2001b). In the behavioral realm, distinctiveness threat elicits
the desire to clearly differentiate the ingroup from other groups, which may take
the form of overt discrimination (Jetten et al. 1999), especially for those central
or most committed to the group (Jetten et al. 2001d). Group distinctiveness threat
combined with high commitment may even lead to displays of hatred and disgust
towards the outgroup as a result of the motivation to sharpen group boundaries
29 Nov 2001
11:11
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
178
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
(Keltner & Haidt 1999). Moreover, intergroup similarity only provides a basis for
contact so long as differentiation is possible (Roccas & Schwartz 1993). However,
similarities perceived as aversive in one intergroup context may form the basis
for common categorization if distinctiveness concerns are addressed (Hornsey &
Hogg 2000).
Although generally speaking, group members prefer their group to be positively distinct from other groups (Mummendey & Schreiber 1983), for committed group members it may be of paramount importance to establish a distinctive
group identity per se (Spears et al. 2001b). In such situations the distinctiveness motive takes precedence over a desire for ingroup superiority, so that highly
committed group members may settle for a negative identity rather than being
regarded positively at the expense of group distinctiveness. For example, Polish students who were strongly committed to their national identity claimed to
have an array of clearly negative but group-defining characteristics (Mlicki &
Ellemers 1996).
To summarize, group-level threat combined with high group commitment
is associated with perceptual, affective, and behavioral reactions aimed at the
group reasserting itself in terms of either value or distinctiveness. This may
lead to a high degree of self-stereotyping, expressions of strong ingroup loyalty, and a readiness for collective action. The quest for clear intergroup differentiation may paradoxically lead highly committed group members to cultivate
negative traits and/or behaviors, insofar as they seem to underline the group’s
distinct identity.
CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
With this chapter we have integrated theoretical insights and empirical research in
the area of self and social identity in terms of a taxonomy of situations defined by
the level of group commitment and social contextual characteristics. We reviewed
representative research relevant for each of the cells in the resulting matrix. We have
shown that whereas strength of commitment to the group indicates the likelihood
that a particular (social) identity will be relevant to the individual in question,
the nature of the resulting perceptual, affective, or behavioral responses depends
on interaction with the relevant social context and which aspects of the self are
secure or threatened. We now try to derive some more general conclusions from
our review in terms of this analytical framework.
First, from the literature it is evident that the bulk of research is most relevant
to two of the situations that we distinguish. Most social-cognitive work on self and
social identity has examined situations in which the self remains uninvolved, as
group commitment is low, and no threat is present (cell 1 of our taxonomy). Conversely, research in the social identity tradition has primarily tried to uncover how
highly committed group members respond to group level threats (as in cell 6 of our
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
179
taxonomy). As a result, it should be clear that some cells of our taxonomy deserve
further research attention. In a similar vein, whereas we have examined research on
perceptual, affective, and behavioral responses, some modes are overrepresented
in some cells and underrepresented in others (e.g., perceptual responses mainly
occur in cell 1, whereas research in cell 6 focuses more on behavioral responses),
and other forms of response (e.g., affective responses) are less researched. As well
as reflecting the focus in the literature, this informs us of the relevance of affect
and action under conditions in which the self is threatened.
Another consequence of this exercise is that this has forced us to indicate the differences between conditions that at first sight may seem quite similar and have previously been confounded. For example, instances of self-affirmation (as in cell 3)
are often considered in conjunction with attempts at individual mobility (in cell 5).
At first sight these may indeed seem to represent similar motives, but our analysis
proposes that there is a fundamental difference between them. Responses to categorization threat (cell 3) involve resisting the very idea that individuals are treated
as category members (even though such resistance may not be generic but can be
highly context-specific). By contrast, threat to the value of the group (cell 5) may
elicit individual mobility attempts, which imply that the category system may be
accepted, and only one’s position within that system is disputed. To complicate
matters further, the psychological and strategic processes that take place when
group members aim at individual mobility (in cell 5) may involve temporary distancing of self from group, resembling the processes that occur when people reject
categorization altogether (as in cell 3), as a step toward achieving inclusion in
another more attractive group. As such, perceptions (e.g., distancing oneself from
the group) and affective reactions (e.g., decreased level of ingroup identification)
may be a first step necessary to prepare for other behavior (e.g., leaving the group).
By organizing our review according to a limited number of cells, we have tried
to show that a range of observable responses may stem from a distinct pattern of
underlying motives and regulatory mechanisms, due to credibility considerations
relating to social reality constraints (Ellemers et al. 1999a, Spears et al. 2001a)
and the feasibility of different response strategies derived from socio-structural
conditions (Ouwerkerk et al. 1999). Thus, identical forms of behavior (i.e., ingroup
favoritism) may either constitute an attempt to improve the standing of the group
(as when highly committed group members are confronted by group-value threat,
cell 6), or result from the desire to salvage one’s individual identity when it is
inevitably submerged in the group (i.e., under low commitment and categorization
threat, cell 3).
One important conclusion of this is that responses should not be considered
in isolation or taken at face value as necessarily reflecting privately held views.
Responses may often be strategic, addressing identity-expressive concerns and instrumental concerns directed by goals attuned to the dominant level of self, which
take into account the constraints and possibilities present in context (Ellemers &
Barreto 2000, Ellemers et al. 1999a, Spears et al. 2001a). Consideration of the
different underlying goals and motives associated with combinations of self and
29 Nov 2001
11:11
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
180
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
contextual conditions is essential to explain why superficially similar as well as
different response patterns emerge. The joint examination of perceptual, affective,
and behavioral consequences and the moderating role of group commitment provides insight into these patterns, as it helps to predict where essential differences
are likely to occur.
Another theoretical point that can be derived from the discussion of our taxonomy is that identical conditions may have positive as well as negative consequences,
both for the individual and from the perspective of the social system as a whole.
For instance, whereas it has been argued that inclusion in a group may serve important self-protective functions (e.g., Leary & Baumeister 2000), we have seen
that people may suffer from being categorized against their will, for instance by
showing performance impairment due to stereotype threat. In our view, whether
or not people feel committed to the group in question is an important determinant
of how they respond to the relevant social context and its implications.
Similar interactive effects also imply that the role of group commitment can
differ substantially as a function of group context as well as identity content. It is
often assumed that high commitment leads to prosocial behavior, and that this is
beneficial from a societal perspective. However, this is not necessarily the case.
Group commitment only predicts prosocial behavior towards the ingroup, but can
also cause outgroup derogation. Indeed, compliance with group norms may just
as easily elicit individualistic, antisocial, or “deviant” behavior. Thus, even when
focusing on a particular cell of our taxonomy, it is important to distinguish between
different sorts of group contexts, and to specify the content of identity and norms
prescribing behavior.
One important issue we have touched on only incidentally in this review is
how precisely to explain the emergence of group commitment, or commitment
to any level of self for that matter. This question has not been a high priority in
social psychological research in which commitment is often been treated as an
independent variable. Commitment to particular identities is likely to emerge over
time according to the same process of interaction between identity and context that
we have used to guide our analysis (Spears et al. 1999, Turner 1999). For example,
chronic threats to group identity, especially where the social identity is difficult
to escape, may turn the disinterested into the committed over time (Condor 1996,
Doosje et al. 2001). Indeed, the strategic functions of the responses we have been
discussing only make sense in a temporal context in which there is hope and scope
to change an unfavorable status quo (Ellemers 1993, Spears et al. 2001a, Tajfel &
Turner 1979).
To conclude, we have focused on social identity in different group contexts
and have analyzed how both the individual and the collective self are implicated
in a range of different group situations. In order to specify the different concerns
and motivations that may play a role, we developed a taxonomy with which to
analyze the perceptual, affective, and behavioral consequences of the different
combinations of group commitment and identity threat. We think this provides a
useful analytic tool with which to interpret the current literature on the social self
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
181
(both collective and personal) in group contexts, as well as serving as a framework
for understanding future research in this area.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
LITERATURE CITED
Abrams DA, Hogg MA, eds. 1988. Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester
Wheatsheaf
Baltesen R. 2000. Maar het Baan-gevoel blijft.
FEM/DeWeek. 21:22–24
Banaji MR, Prentice DA. 1994. The self in
social contexts. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 45:297–
332
Barreto M, Ellemers N. 2000. You can’t always
do what you want: social identity and selfpresentational determinants of the choice to
work for a low status group. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:891–906
Barreto M, Ellemers N. 2001. The Impact of
respect vs. neglect of self-identities on identification and group loyalty. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Bull. In press
Baumeister RF. 1998. The self. See Gilbert et al.
1998, pp. 680–740
Baumeister RF, Leary MR. 1995. The need to
belong: desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol.
Bull. 117:497–529
Branscombe NR. 1998. Thinking about one’s
gender group’s privileges or disadvantages:
consequences for well being in women and
men. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 37:167–84
Branscombe NR, Doosje B, McGarty C. 2001.
The antecedents, experience, and consequences of collective guilt. See Mackie &
Smith 2001. In press
Branscombe NR, Ellemers N, Spears R,
Doosje B. 1999a. See Ellemers et al. 1999c,
pp. 35–58
Branscombe NR, Schmitt MT, Harvey RD.
1999b. Perceiving pervasive discrimination
among African Americans: implications for
group identification and well-being. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 77:135–49
Branscombe NR, Wann DL. 1994. Collective
self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on
trial. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 24:641–57
Brewer MB. 1991. The social self: on being the
same and different at the same time. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17:4750–82
Brewer MB, Harasty Feinstein AS. 1999. Dual
processes in the cognitive representation of
persons and social categories. See Chaiken
& Trope 1999, pp. 253–70
Chaiken S, Trope Y. 1999. Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford
Cheryan S, Bodenhausen GV. 2000. When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual performance: the psychological hazards of “model
minority status.” Psychol. Sci. 11:399–402
Cialdini RB, Borden RJ, Thorne A, Walker
MR, Freeman S, Sloan LR. 1976. Basking in
reflected glory: three (football) field studies.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 34:366–75
Condor S. 1996. Social identity and time. In Social Groups and Identities: Developing the
Legacy of Henri Tajfel, ed. P Robinson, pp.
285–315. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann
Crisp RJ, Hewstone M. 2001. Multiple categorization and implicit intergroup bias: differential category dominance and the positivenegative asymmetry effect. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31:45–62
Crocker J, Major B, Steele C. 1998. Social
stigma. See Gilbert et al. 1998, pp. 504–
53
Deaux K, Major B. 1987. Putting gender
into context: an interactive model of genderrelated behavior. Psychol. Rev. 94:369–89
Dijker AJM. 1987. Emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 17:305–
25
29 Nov 2001
11:11
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
182
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
Doosje B, Branscombe NR, Spears R, Manstead ASR. 1998. Guilty by association: when
one’s group has a negative history. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 75:872–86
Doosje B, Ellemers N, Spears R. 1995. Perceived intragroup variability as a function of
group status and identification. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 31:410–36
Doosje B, Ellemers N, Spears R. 1999a. Commitment and intergroup behaviour. See Ellemers et al. 1999c, pp. 84–106
Doosje B, Haslam SA, Spears R, Oakes PJ,
Koomen W. 1998. The effect of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgments and the evaluation of group
characteristics. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 28:173–
84
Doosje B, Spears R, Ellemers N. 2001. The dynamic and determining role of ingroup identification: responses to anticipated and actual
changes in the intergroup status hierarchy. Br.
J. Soc. Psychol. In press
Doosje B, Spears R, Ellemers N, Koomen W.
1999b. Perceived group variability in intergroup relations: the distinctive role of social
identity. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 10:41–74
Drury J, Reicher S. 2000. Collective action and
psychological change: the emergence of new
social identities. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39:579–
604
Ellemers N. 1993. Influence of socio-structural
variables on identity enhancement strategies.
Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 4:27–57
Ellemers N. 2001. Individual upward mobility
and the perceived legitimacy of intergroup
relations. See Jost & Major 2001
Ellemers N, Barreto M. 2000. The impact of relative group status: affective, perceptual and
behavioural consequences. In The Blackwell
Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 4. Intergroup Processes, ed. R Brown, S Gaertner,
pp. 324–43. Oxford: Blackwell
Ellemers N, Barreto M, Spears R. 1999a.
Commitment and strategic responses to social context. See Ellemers et al. 1999c, pp.
127–46
Ellemers N, De Gilder D, Van den Heuvel H.
1998. Career-oriented versus team-oriented
commitment and behavior at work. J. Appl.
Psychol. 83:717–30
Ellemers N, Kortekaas P, Ouwerkerk J. 1999b.
Self-categorization, commitment to the
group and social self-esteem as related but
distinct aspects of social identity. Eur. J. Soc.
Psychol. 28:371–98
Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B. 1997. Sticking together or falling apart: ingroup identification as a psychological determinant of
group commitment versus individual mobility. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72:617–26
Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B, eds. 1999c.
Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content. Oxford: Blackwell
Ellemers N, Van Rijswijk W. 1997. Identity
needs versus social opportunities: the use
of group-level and individual level identity management strategies. Soc. Psychol. Q.
60:52–65
Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P. 2001. Emotions up and down: intergroup emotions result from perceived status and competition.
See Mackie & Smith 2001. In press
Fiske ST, Lin MH, Neuberg SL. 1999. The continuum model: ten years later. See Chaiken
& Trope 1999, pp. 231–54
Frable DES. 1993. Being and feeling unique:
statistical deviance and psychological
marginality. J. Pers. 61:85–110
Gaertner L, Sedikides C, Graetz K. 1999.
In search of self-definition: motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76:5–18
Gilbert DT, Fiske SR, Lindzey G, eds. 1998.
The Handbook of Social Psychology. New
York: McGraw-Hill
Haslam SA, Turner JC. 1992. Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping. 2. The
relationship between frame of reference, selfcategorization and accentuation. Eur. J. Soc.
Psychol. 22:251–77
Haslam SA, Turner JC, Oakes PJ, McGarty
C, Hayes BK. 1992. Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping. 1. The effects
of intergroup relations as mediated by social
change and frame of reference. Eur. J. Soc.
Psychol. 22:3–20
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
Hinkle S, Brown R. 1988. Intergroup comparison and social identity: some links and lacunae. See Abrams & Hogg 1988, pp. 48–
70
Hofstede G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Hogg MA. 1992. The Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf
Hogg MA, Abrams DA. 1988. Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity. See
Abrams & Hogg 1988, pp. 28–47
Hornsey MJ, Hogg MA. 2000. Subgroup relations: a comparison of the mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup
identity models of prejudice reduction. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:242–56
Jackson JW. 2001. Ingroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification and perceived intergroup conflict.
Self Identity. In press
Jetten J, Branscombe NR, Spears R. 2001a. On
being peripheral: effects of identity security
on personal and collective self-esteem. Eur.
J. Soc. Psychol. In press
Jetten J, Branscombe NR, Spears R, McKimmie B. 2001b. Predicting the paths of peripherals: the interaction of identification and future possibilities. Submitted
Jetten J, Postmes T, McAuliffe B. 2001c. We’re
all individuals: group norms of individualism
and collectivism, levels of identification, and
identity threat. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. In press
Jetten J, Spears R, Manstead ASR. 1999.
Group distinctiveness and intergroup discrimination. See Ellemers et al. 1999c, pp.
107–26
Jetten J, Spears R, Manstead ASR. 2001d. Similarity as a source of discrimination: The role
of group identification. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.
In press
Jost JT, Major B, eds. 2001. The Psychology of
Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations. New
York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Jost JT, Banaji MR. 1994. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production
183
of false consciousness. Br. J. Soc. Psychol.
33:1–27
Kelly C, Breinlinger S. 1996. The Social Psychology of Collective Action: Identity, Injustice, and Gender. London: Taylor & Francis
Keltner D, Haidt J. 1999. Social functions of
emotions at four levels of analysis. Cogn.
Emot. 13:505–21
Kunda Z, Thagard P. 1996. Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors:
a parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychol. Rev. 103:284–308
Leach CW, Snider SL, Iyer A. 2001. “Poisoning the consciences of the fortunate”: The
experience of relative advantage and support
for social equality. In Relative Deprivation:
Specification, Development, and Integration,
ed. I Walker, HJ Smith. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
Leary MR, Baumeister RF. 2000. The nature
and function of self-esteem: sociometer theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 32:1–62
Lemyre L, Smith PM. 1985. Intergroup discrimination and self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
49:660–70
Leyens JP, Désert M, Croizet JC, Darcis C.
2000. Stereotype threat: Are lower status
and history of stigmatization preconditions
of stereotype threat? Pers. Soc. Psychol.
26:1189–99
Long K, Spears R. 1997. The self-esteem hypothesis revisited: differentiation and the disaffected. See Spears et al. 1997c, pp. 296–317
Luhtanen R, Crocker J. 1991. Self-esteem and
intergroup comparisons: toward a theory of
collective self-esteem. In Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research,
ed. J Suls, TA Wills, pp. 211–36. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum
Mackie DM, Devos T, Smith ER. 2000. Intergroup emotions: explaining offensive action
tendencies in an intergroup context. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 79:602–16
Mackie DM, Smith E, eds. 2001. From Prejudice to Intergroup Emotions: Differentiated
Reactions to Social Groups. Philadelphia:
Psychology Press. In press
29 Nov 2001
11:11
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
184
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
Macrae CN, Bodenhausen GV. 2000. Social
cognition: thinking categorically about others. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51:93–120
Marques JM, Paez D. 1995. The “Black Sheep
effect”: social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 5:37–68
Marx DM, Brown JL, Steele CH. 1999. Allport’s legacy and the situational press of
stereotypes. J. Soc. Issues 55:491–502
McFarland C, Buehler R. 1995. Collective selfesteem as a moderator of the frog-pond effect
in reactions to performance feedback. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 68:1055–70
McGarty C. 1999. Categorization in Social Psychology. London: Sage
Mlicki P, Ellemers N. 1996. Being different or
being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students. Eur.
J. Soc. Psychol. 26:97–114
Moreland RL. 1985. Social categorization and
the assimilation of “new” group members. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48:1173–90
Mullin B, Hogg MA. 1998. Dimensions of
subjective uncertainty in social identification
and minimal group discrimination. Br. J. Soc.
Psychol. 37:345–65
Mummendey A, Schreiber HJ. 1983. Better or
different? Positive social identity by discrimination against or differentiation from outgroups. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 13:389–97
Mussweiler R, Gabriel S, Bodenhausen GV.
2000. Shifting social identities as a strategy for deflecting threatening social comparisons. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79:398–409
Noel JG, Wann DL, Branscombe NR. 1995.
Peripherical ingroup membership status and
public negativity towards outgroups. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 68:127–37
Oakes PJ. 1987. The salience of social categories. See Turner et al. 1987, pp. 42–67
Oakes PJ, Haslam SA, Turner JC. 1994. Stereotyping and Social Reality. Oxford: Blackwell
Ouwerkerk JW, Ellemers N. 2001. The benefits of being disadvantaged: performancerelated circumstances and consequences of
intergroup comparisons. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.
In press
Ouwerkerk JW, Ellemers N, De Gilder D.
1999. Group commitment and individual effort in experimental and organizational contexts. See Ellemers et al. 1999c, pp. 184–
204
Pickett CL, Brewer MB. 2001. Assimilation
and differentiation needs as motivational determinants of perceived ingroup and outgroup homogeneity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. In
press
Postmes T, Spears R. 1998. Deindividuation
and anti-normative behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 123:238–59
Prentice DA, Miller DT, Lightdale JR. 1994.
Asymmetries in attachments to groups and
to their members—distinguishing between
common-identity and common-bond groups.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20:484–93
Reicher SD, Spears R, Postmes T. 1995. A
social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 6:161–89
Reynolds KJ, Oakes PJ. 2000. Variability in impression formation: investigating the role of
motivation, capacity, and the categorization
process. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:355–73
Roccas S, Schwartz SH. 1993. Effects of intergroup similarity on intergroup relations. Eur.
J. Soc. Psychol. 23:581–95
Rubin M, Hewstone M. 1998. Social identity
theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: a review and
some suggestions for clarification. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Rev. 2:40–62
Schmitt MT, Branscombe NR. 2001. The good,
the bad, and the manly: effects of threats to
one’s prototypicality on evaluations of fellow ingroup members. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
In press
Schmitt MT, Silvia PJ, Branscombe NR. 2000.
The intersection of self-evaluation maintenance and social identity theories: intragroup
judgment in interpersonal and intergroup
contexts. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:1598–
606
Schopler J, Insko CA. 1992. The discontinuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup relations: generality and mediation. Eur. Rev.
Soc. Psychol. 3:121–51
Shih M, Pittinsky TL, Ambadi N. 1999.
29 Nov 2001
11:11
AR
AR146-07.tex
AR146-07.sgm
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
Stereotype susceptibility: identity salience
and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychol. Sci. 10:80–83
Simon B, Loewy M, Stürmer S, Weber U,
Freytag P, et al. 1998. Collective identification and social movement participation. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74:646–58
Simon B, Stürmer S, Steffens K. 2000. Helping individuals or group members? The role
of individual and collective identification
in AIDS-volunteerism. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Bull. 26:497–506
Simon B. 1997. Self and group in modern society: ten theses on the individual self and the
collective self. See Spears et al. 1997c, pp.
318–35
Smart L, Wegner DM. 1999. Covering up what
can’t be seen: concealable stigma and mental
control. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77:474–86
Smith ER. 1993. Social identity and social emotions: toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In Affect, Cognition and Stereotyping:
Interactive Processes in Group Perception,
ed. DM Mackie, DL Hamilton, pp. 297–315.
San Diego, CA: Academic
Smith ER, Murphy J, Coats S. 1999. Attachment to groups: theory and measurement. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77:94–110
Snyder CR, Fromkin HL. 1980. Uniqueness:
The Human Pursuit of Difference. New York:
Plenum
Spears R. 2001. The interaction between the
individual and the collective self: selfcategorization in context. In Individual Self,
Relational Self, and Collective Self: Partners,
Opponents or Strangers?, ed. C Sedikides,
MB Brewer. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology
Press. In press
Spears R, Doosje B, Ellemers N. 1997a.
Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to
group status and distinctiveness: the role of
group identification. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
23:538–53
Spears R, Doosje B, Ellemers N. 1999. Commitment and the context of social perception.
See Ellemers et al. 1999c, pp. 59–83
Spears R, Jetten J, Doosje B. 2001a. The
(il)legitimacy of ingroup bias: from social re-
185
ality to social resistance. See Jost & Major
2001. In press
Spears R, Jetten J, Scheepers D. 2001b. Distinctiveness and the definition of collective
self: a tripartite model. In Psychological Perspectives on Self and Identity, ed. A Tesser,
JV Wood, DA Stapel, Vol. 2. Lexington, VA:
Am. Psychol. Assoc. In press
Spears R, Oakes PJ, Ellemers N, Haslam SA.
1997b. The social psychology of stereotyping and group life. See Spears et al. 1997c,
pp. 1–19
Spears R, Oakes PJ, Ellemers N, Haslam
SA. 1997c. Introduction: the Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford:
Blackwell
Steele CM. 1987. The psychology of selfaffirmation: sustaining the integrity of the
self. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L Berkowitz, 21:261–302. New
York: Academic
Steele CM. 1997. A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychol. 52:613–29
Steele CM, Aronson J. 1995. Stereotype threat
and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
69:797–811
Stone J, Lynch CI, Sjomeling M, Darley JM.
1999. Stereotype threat effects on black and
white athletic performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77:1213–27
Swann WB, Milton LP, Polzer JT. 2000.
Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation and small group effectiveness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79:238–50
Swim JK, Miller DL. 1999. White guilt: its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Bull. 25:500–14
Tajfel H. 1978. Differentiation Between Social
Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of
Intergroup Relations. New York: Academic
Tajfel H, Turner J. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. WG
Austin, S Worchel, pp. 33–48. Monterey, CA:
Brooks-Cole
29 Nov 2001
11:11
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only.
186
AR
AR146-07.tex
ELLEMERS
¥
AR146-07.sgm
SPEARS
¥
LaTeX2e(2001/05/10)
P1: GSR
DOOSJE
Taylor DM, Doria JR. 1981. Self-serving and
group-serving bias in attribution. J. Soc. Psychol. 113:201–11
Terry DJ, Hogg MA. 1996. Group norms and
the attitude-behavior relationship: a role for
group identification. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
22:776–93
Triandis HC. 1989. The self and social behavior
in differing cultural contexts. Psychol. Rev.
96:506–20
Turner JC. 1987. A self-categorization theory.
See Turner et al. 1987, pp. 42–67
Turner JC. 1999. Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. See Ellemers et al. 1999c,
pp. 6–34
Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD,
Wetherell MS, eds. 1987. A self-categorization theory. In Rediscovering the Social
Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Smith PM.
1984. Failure and defeat as determinants
of group cohesiveness. Br. J. Soc. Psychol.
23:97–111
Van Knippenberg A. 1984. Intergroup differences in group perceptions. In The
Social Dimension: European Developments in Social Psychology, ed. H Tajfel,
pp. 560–78. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Van Rijswijk W, Ellemers N. 2002. Context effects on the application of stereotype content
to multiple categorizable targets. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 28:In press
Veenstra K, Haslam SA. 2000. Willingness to
participate in industrial protest: exploring social identification in context. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39:153–72
Wright SC, Taylor DM, Moghaddam FM.
1990. Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: from acceptance to collective protest. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58:994–
1003